Lords Sitting of 2 February 1943

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
THE LATE LORD BRAYBROOKE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I regret to have to inform your Lordships that Lieut. Lord Braybrooke has been killed in North Africa. I am sure that your Lordships would wish me to express our sincere sympathy to his relatives.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a.

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMSON): My Lords, I move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the said Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, on the question of this Report being received, I want to refer for a moment to a question which was the subject of some difference of opinion between the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack and myself on the day last week when we had this Bill before us. I think it is desirable that the facts should be before your Lordships. On that occasion I moved an Amendment to the effect that if a British-born woman who had married an alien so desired she could have her British nationality restored to her. I told your Lordships that in the Dominion of New Zealand legislation to that effect, or something like it, had been passed. Since last week I have had the good fortune to secure a copy of the actual legislation which was passed in New Zealand, and I want to
832
tell your Lordships what the facts are. A section of the New Zealand Act—which is a Nationality Act—after the first subsection, which embodies the British 1933 legislation on this subject, goes on in this way. There is a separate subsection which says:
"This section shall apply to every woman who at the time of her marriage to an alien, whether before or after the passing of this Act, was a British subject and who, by reason of her marriage, has acquired the nationality of her husband."
That is the class of woman of which I was speaking.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would my noble friend kindly read the last words again? I am not sure that I caught them correctly.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The words were: "who, by reason of her marriage, has acquired the nationality of her husband." The next subsection is to the effect that any woman to whom this section applies may make a declaration in the prescribed form and manner that she desires to retain, while in New Zealand, the rights of a British subject, and thereupon she shall, within New Zealand, be entitled to all political and other rights, powers, and privileges, and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject. That does not mention nationality. It gives the woman all the rights and privileges of British citizenship. I think that possibly the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack will feel that he was understating it a little when he said that it was only provided that a British woman who was married to an alien could exercise certain civil rights in the Dominions. I think that the expression "exercising certain civil rights" hardly covers the ground so fully as the clause which I have read. Clearly it will be out of order to discuss the merits of this subject at this stage. Consequently having given your Lordships what I believe to be the correct facts, I give notice that I shall move an Amendment in the New Zealand form on the Third Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure we must all admire the pertinacity of my noble friend. What he has really been saying is that the statement I made on the Second Reading of the Bill was correct, and that the im-

833
pression under which I am sure he then laboured was not correct. What he said on the Second Reading, in answer to my assertion that so far as possible we keep the subject of British nationality the same throughout the Empire, was that that was all nonsense, for in New Zealand a British woman who married an alien retained her British nationality. What he now says he said is that that there is legislation in New Zealand whereby a woman who marries an alien preserves her British nationality or "something like it." I understand him to say that he said that or "something like it," I do not recall the something like it.
Now my statement was entirely correct, and perhaps the simplest way of proving it is to put before the House two simple extracts. I have here the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1937 to which I alluded during the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill. This is an Official Report, and it was agreed to by all the members of the Conference. I will read a single paragraph which appears on page:28
"The Australian and New Zealand Delegations in opening the discussion called attention to the further legislation recently passed in the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand which does not affect the common status of British subjects, but under which a woman who prior her marriage was a British subject but ceased to be a British subject by reason of her marriage to an alien may retain within the Commonwealth of Australia or New Zealand respectively the political and other rights and liabilities of a British subject.'
That is exactly what I said, and I called attention to the fact that it is not true and not correct to say that the New Zealand legislation would preserve for a British woman who married an alien the position of a British subject. The report of the Imperial Conference says in terms that that is not the effect of the legislation.
The other quotation which I wish to give your Lordships is from a speech made by the New Zealand Minister of Internal Affairs in the House of Representatives in New Zealand at the time when the measure which has been referred to was proposed. I suppose his view of what he was doing may still perhaps be treated as some guide. He said that these proposals
"did not confer upon such women the status of British subjects, but merely conferred certain rights which meant that during residence in New Zealand they could exercise their civil rights there as though they were British subjects."
834
I think my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh thought that my phrase about exercising civil rights was rather economic of the facts, but it happens to be the exact phrase used by the Minister. As I have already informed my noble friend by letter, the distinction is perfectly obvious. The effect of the New Zealand legislation is to allow, for example, such a woman as this to vote in a New Zealand election. She was a British subject by birth, and she has married an alien, but nevertheless she is allowed to vote there. But there are many purposes for which she would not be in benefit from this legislation at all. If, for example, she needed the assistance of diplomatic representation to protect her property against some other country she would have no right to ask the British Foreign Office or the British Ambassador to undertake her case because she is not a British subject; she is an alien. Or, to give another example, if she found herself in a position where, unhappily, she was charged with treason, and if the question there was whether she was a British subject, the answer would he that she was not a British subject. That is precisely what I explained to the House on Second Reading. I think that the matter is now entirely plain, and I. hope that your Lordships will be prepared to receive the Report of the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendments reported accordingly.

MINISTER OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a straight-forward measure, and the language in it does not need much explanation. It has been passed by general assent in the House of Commons, and I cannot doubt that your Lordships will receive it favourably here. The Bill implements the announcement which was made to this House by my noble friend Lord Portal on December 1 last, when the House was informed that the Government had decided to ask Parliament to constitute a separate Ministry of Town and Country Planning for England and Wales, under a separate Minister. That announcement was received with general

835
approval, having regard to the importance of the function which such a Minister will have to discharge. Let me quote, merely as an example, an observation made by my noble friend Lord Samuel a week or two earlier, when he said that a Ministry of Planning "would require the full attention of the most active and energetic member of the Cabinet."
Clause 1 of the Bill defines the duties of the Minister. It is well known that the present Postmaster-General has been designated as the first incumbent of this most important post, a post which is to be regarded as that of a Minister of the first class. It will be for that Minister, in collaboration, of course, with the Government as a whole, to promote the necessary legislation, and my noble friend Lord Portal has already informed the House of certain matters on which the decision to legislate has been taken by the Government. I shall not say more about that now, because this Bill is not a Bill proclaiming any detailed policy or programme, but a Bill for creating the Ministry and a Minister. There is, however, one fact to be noted which I think will receive general acceptance, and that is that the Minister, in Clause 1 of the Bill, is described as
"To be charged with the duty of securing consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy—
I emphasize "national policy"—
"with respect to the use and development of land throughout England and Wales."
The effect of this Bill, therefore, is to transfer to this new Minister and to his Department the powers and duties connected with town and country planning; that is to say, the control and proper use of land in town and country.
These are powers which, since the Minister of Works and Planning Act, 1942, have been a part, and a part only, of the responsibilities of the Minister of Works and Planning. As your Lordships will recall, before that last-mentioned Act was passed in June last, these powers and duties were again a part, and only a comparatively small fraction, of the multifarious duties of the Minister of Health. What is significant about this Bill is that it involves the decision by Parliament that it is not enough to make this all-important subject one of the topics which have to occupy the attention of a Minister,
836
whether he be the Minister of Health or the Minister of Works and Planning, but that it is a topic of such overwhelmingly great importance as to require the concentrated attention of a Minister to be devoted to it.
It will not, perhaps, be thought inappropriate if in a sentence I remind your Lordships, especially in view of the recent death of Mr. John Burns, that it was Mr. John Burns who first made this subject of town and country planning a matter of legislation and of departmental attention. Mr. Burns has now passed from the scene, and indeed for the last quarter of a century has been in complete retirement; but there are in this House, I think, four men who sat in the same Cabinet, Mr. Asquith's Cabinet, with Mr. Burns, and we all preserve the memory of his vigour, of his comradeship, and of his intense championship of London and of everything that would make London fine and beautiful. It must have been largely that aspect of the matter which led Mr. Burns to take up the subject. He was the first wage-earning workman who ever entered a British Cabinet.
As I have tried to point out in these few words, down to the present time town and country planning, in the sense of the control of the proper use and development of the soil of this country, and of the kind of buildings put upon the soil, has been only one out of a large number of urgent tasks laid upon the back of a particular Minister; but now we are recording in Parliament our resolve and intention that it should be regarded as a first-class subject, calling for the undivided attention of a Minister of the first rank. As for how this work is to be related to the wider and more general aspects of the new Britain, and of what in a different and wider sense is sometimes called planning, your Lordships are aware that the intention is that this new Minister of Town and Country Planning shall be one of a circle of Ministers presided over, as things are, by the Minister without Portfolio, who has a far wider range of duties, and who will secure the necessary contact and co-operation for present purposes.
There is one other feature of the Bill to which your Lordships may wish me to refer in a sentence or two, and that is Clause 8, the subject-matter of Clause 8 being the power to establish Commissions in this connexion. There was in

837
a previous debate, in which I and others took part, some difference of opinion as to the part which Commissions should play in this matter, and I call attention to Clause 8 because, while this is completely consistent with the decision of the Government that in this particular matter they would not follow the suggestion that the subject should be handled over to a Commission, it none the less marks out the proper function which Commissions in this connexion may fulfil. Clause 8 confers the power to establish Commissions for certain purposes. The language of the clause, as originally drawn, produced a little misapprehension, or at any rate a little apprehension, on the part of the associations of local authorities, who feared that under it Commissions or regional authorities might be set up to perform functions now performed by local authorities. That was their anxiety.
In the view of the Government there was really ground for such fears, since it is a well-known principle that a power to make Orders in Council does not confer the power to alter Acts, unless such power is expressly given. The passage of the Bill therefore would not have enabled the statutory functions of local authorities to be interfered with, and if a situation arose in which it was thought desirable to transfer statutory powers to a Commission established under the clause, further legislation would be needed for the purpose. But while that is in the view of the Government and its advisers correct, it is a very proper object of Parliament so to frame clauses as not to give rise to anxieties and apprehensions, but to quiet them. Therefore in the House of Commons this clause took a different form, and a change was made, so that it is now framed as it appears in the Bill; and in order to make the true imitations of the clause quite clear to everybody the Government proposed an Amendment which has removed the apprehensions that were felt. I may say that the Amendment was settled as a result of discussion between my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio, who took charge of this Bill in another place, and representatives of the associations of local authorities, and everybody is, I think, now quite satisfied.
The Minister under this clause might find it convenient to use the machinery of the clause to establish a Commission, or more Commissions than one, for
838
various advisory purposes—perhaps to make a survey over an area, or to collect information, for example in connexion with national parks; and further, if it were decided to adopt the scheme for the acquisition of development rights recommended by the Uthwatt Report, that Commission might well be required in connexion with that scheme. Of course, the adoption of that scheme would necessitate further legislation. I have said that in some little detail but I am anxious that in both Houses of Parliament a most definite assurance should go forth to these great local administrative bodies—an assurance which is only their due—that Clause 8 is not designed to have, and cannot have, the dangerous effects which, in view of their own great responsibilities, these local authorities were anxious should be avoided. I do not think there is anything else in the Bill. The details to a large extent are necessary machinery, taking steps which I think will be generally approved, and future legislation on this all-important subject will be a matter for the Minister when he is authorized to set up in his Ministry under the Powers of this Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sure that every one of your Lordships would wish to be associated with the tribute which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has paid to the late Mr. John Burns, especially in connexion with the initiation of town-planning activity when he was President of the then existing Local Government Board. His work for London is on record, and it is no doubt the case that, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, it was his great devotion to London that impelled him to tackle the problem in those early years of town planning. This is the second procedural Bill to deal with the machinery of town planning. On the 11th February of last year the noble Lord, Lord Reith, informed the House that a great step forward had been taken in regard to planning by reason of the decision of the Government to transfer the planning powers from the Ministry of Health to the then existing Ministry of Works and Buildings. Some of us doubted whether there was very close affinity between

839
planning and the Ministry of Works and Buildings. Nevertheless, in June last year—some four months later—a Bill was passed to effect the transfer, and now over six months afterwards we have another Bill to transfer the relatively modest powers which at present exist away from the Ministry of Works and Planning to a brand new Ministry.
It has taken the Government just a year to make up their mind by whom and by what machinery planning is to be done, and the Government cannot pray in excuse for this delay that they were waiting for the Report of the Scott Committee or of the Uthwatt Committee, because neither of these Committees was asked to consider matters of machinery. It is true that both of them did and, as my noble friend Lord Samuel pungently pointed out in an earlier debate, whatever other qualifications the members of these respective Committees may have possessed, they did not possess in any particular degree the qualifications for determining the proper machinery for dealing with planning. And so a year after the momentous announcement of Lord Reith we are now asked to assent to a second Bill, this time to set up a separate Ministry of Planning. If planning could be accomplished by procedural Bills, Government declarations, and Reports of Expert Committees, it would already be well on the way, and the fair face of new Britain could already be discernible. But in sad truth it does not appear that very much positive has been done. There has, of course, been the transfer of the related staff from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Works and Planning, and I suppose that staff, augmented, will now be transferred from the Ministry of Works and Planning to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. That, so far as one can discern, is about the only positive thing which has up to the present been done in this important matter of planning. And it is the case that the Government are laying themselves open to the charge of shilly-shallying and procrastination in failing to make up their mind as to how this very complicated problem is to be tackled.
I am not here specially referring to the major proposals of the Uthwatt Report—namely, the development rights scheme and the proposal for a periodic levy—but
840
I am referring to the more manageable, less controversial, but no less important, recommendations of the Uthwatt Report that planning authorities should be given new and enlarged powers, that they should be able more quickly to acquire land, that they should be permitted to deal with non-conforming buildings and non-conforming user, and that the procedure of planning should be speeded up. This was urged strongly upon the Government in the debate that took place in this House on the 18th and 19th November last. We were told then, as we had been told before, that these matters were receiving careful consideration—close consideration, urgent consideration; but apparently that is as far as the Government have gone.
The Lord Chancellor himself, in winding up for the Government the debate on the 19th November, resisted with, as I thought, some petulance the strong complaints that had been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, about delay. He said:
"Is there really any ground for saying that there has been any procrastination or any ground for reproach because the Government between the 10th September and the present date have not been able to reach those conclusions which we all hope it may be possible for the Government to announce very shortly?"
Ten weeks have elapsed since that statement was made, and nothing beyond the declaration of December 1 has eventuated. Since that declaration, which conveyed the decision arrived at by the Government before December 1, very little indeed seems to have been done. In fact, the Minister without Portfolio, in another place, when introducing the Bill now before your Lordships said that "For the last few weeks I have deliberately not pressed forward with the consideration of any amendment of powers." Why, I do not know.
One is not moved to accept the curious explanation of the Minister without Portfolio—namely, that he wanted to await the sage advice and wisdom of the Minister Designate. The Minister was designated shortly after December 1, and I should have thought there was no reason to delay consideration with him, or the taking advantage of his sage advice and wisdom, until after this procedural Bill was on the Statute Book. I wish to stress, on behalf of my noble friends on

841
these Benches, that they and the country are getting very disturbed about the sustained delay which is taking place with regard to planning, and that they find no comfort in being repeatedly told that this is a first step. An accumulation of first steps will not carry us very far. Like marking time, that is a process of great movement but little progress. What the country is awaiting with some impatience is second steps, and the steps beyond the second steps—steps which will give some earnest to the people of this country that promises are likely to be implemented, and that the Government are determined to be ready for the problems of planning in peace-time and not, as they were for the problems of war, unready.
As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said, this Bill is procedural. The local authorities were glad to have the assurance given by the Minister without Portfolio that it was not intended to impinge on the rights of local authorities or to restrict or impair their right of direct access to the Minister, whoever he might be. The assurance which has been reiterated by the noble Viscount that the functions of these Commissions are intended to be advisory and, in case of necessity, managerial and not executive—not in substitution of the powers of the Minister—has given comfort to the local authorities and to those concerned with the discharge of the duties cast upon local authorities. I should like to express the hope that the reference to Commissions in the Memorandum—though not in the Bill—does not mean that the Minister will appoint any large number of Commissions. It was said in a debate in your Lordships' House last week in another connexion that Committees tend to proliferate. The same is the case with Commissions. It would he unfortunate for the exercise and maintenance of democracy in this country if the appointment of Commissions was regarded as an alternative to democratic, decisive, responsible government. It would be equally unfortunate if a Minister sought to escape from Ministerial responsibility through the appointment of Commissions. We on these Benches support the Bill. We hope that the Minister Designate, when he is in the saddle, will, at all events, exercise decision and speed. I should like, for myself and for my noble friends on these Benches, to extend to the
842
Minister Designate our every good will and encouragement in the great and inspiring task that he has before him. We assure him that his activities will be the more praiseworthy if they are expeditious.
Before I sit down I should like to crave indulgence to refer to an earlier debate on the question of planning. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that in November last I initiated a debate upon the Scott and Uthwatt Reports. I sought to indicate certain personal views upon these Reports, and especially upon the recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee. I can fairly claim that the views I then expressed were not based upon a cursory examination of the proposals. It is correct that in some quarters my views were received with some measure of surprise, in others with some impatience, but the mere fact that my views may coincide on certain aspects of the Uthwatt recommendations with those of noble Lords whose political and social philosophy is not mine, does not make my views any more or less sound. I cannot accept the words that were put into my mouth by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chancellor wound up the debate for the Government on the second day and in the course of his speech thought fit to deal with some of my submissions. As I listened to the Lord Chancellor I thought that my views were not receiving the fairest interpretation, and I sought to correct that interpretation in the few words with which I prefaced the withdrawal of my Motion. But the hour was getting late, and I thought I was consulting the convenience of your Lordships by being brief on that occasion. When, however, I had the opportunity of reading in the Official Report the statements of the Lord Chancellor, I was o frankly amazed at the misconstruction which had been placed upon my reference to nationalization in connexion with planning, and I am bound to say that I felt it amounted to a travesty of what I said. With your Lordships indulgence I would like to take this, the first opportunity of correcting this misinterpretation of what I said.
The Lord Chancellor stated, according to the Official Report, column 188:
"I should like now without delaying any longer to return to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. As I have said, he stated the case as he saw it against the proposals of these two Committees, proposals

843
which are designed to promote orderly planning, and my noble friend felt it right to indicate what he thought was a preferable mode of action. I am speaking quite summarily, because it is too late in the day to go into precise detail, but I state it fairly, I hope, when I say that his view was that the right line was quite different, the right line was nationalization, and the right line was the rating of site values"
It is impossible to spell out from what I said with reference to nationalization any such thing, and I will read what I said on that occasion about nationalization.
I said, with reference to the development rights scheme:
"The situation is that it is part of this scheme that immediately development of land within it is impending the State shall become automatically the owner of the fee simple. It means, therefore, that from day to day the State will become the owner of land; large units, small units, near cities, away from cities, all over the country, without any relation one to the other; a sort of unplanned, fortuitous ownership which is initiated, not by the State, and which may not be initiated by the owner of land, but can be initiated by some third party who thinks he would like to develop the land of somebody else."
Then I went on to say, in order that it might not be thought that in general I was opposed to nationalization of land for other reasons:
"I hope that my objection to this scheme will not be misunderstood by any of my noble friends opposite. I still believe in the nationalization of land. I believe that the nation's land should belong to it, and I believe that the nation should re-possess itself of its national asset as soon as practicable. But I should hope that if this is done it is done on some ordered lines with regard to the ownership of land being of benefit and advantage to the whole of the nation, and not that we should proceed to land nationalization by the acquisition of, or rather by receiving into the fold of national ownership, isolated bits of land merely because some third party has decided to develop them. That would be a Joseph's coat of nationalization."
I went on to point out the difficulty of management of such isolated units of land, and I indicated that I regarded that proposal as being one of the defects of the development rights scheme.
If it can be said from those words—and I made no further reference to nationalization—that I offered nationalization of land as the right line to the solution of the problems of planning which we were then considering, then I submit to your Lordships language has ceased to have any meaning. But the Lord Chancellor, satis-
844
fied no doubt with his first statement about land nationalization, warmed to the work. Having set up a nine-pin of his own fabrication, he exulted in exhibiting how dexterous he was in knocking it down. He proceeded therefore to say:
"I am afraid I take the same view about nationalization. Putting aside the perfectly enormous range of such an operation, which I should have thought is quite inconceivable in the course of the war; putting aside all the formidable questions that arise about compensation, which I gather Lord Latham would, to a large extent, avoid by the process of not paying compensation unless he was convinced manifest injustice had been done—putting aside all that, when the State has acquired the land, is planning any further on?"
I did not suggest it was any further on. I think it is not unnatural that I should seek the indulgence of your Lordships' House to correct this travesty of what I said. I have never thought or felt that the age-long debating trick of erecting nine-pins in order to knock them over served any great utility. It is sometimes amusing, it is seldom useful, and I had not thought that it had a large part to play in the debates in your Lordships' House, or much contribution to make to the solution of the complexities of planning. I am bound to say that my almost unbounded admiration of the capacity for exact comprehension and precise definition possessed by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack makes it very difficult for me to convince myself that this misrepresentation was entirely unwitting, and I have felt it necessary to make this statement.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Lord will not expect me to follow him into this altercation between himself and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I feel indeed, so great is his indignation, in a somewhat dangerous position geographically with himself on my left and the Lord Chancellor on my right. The House, I am sure, will desire me now to revert to the subject of the Bill which is before us, although I understand the noble Lord's wish to make a personal explanation with regard to a matter which arose in some previous debate. First I may be allowed to re-echo what was said so well by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack about our late colleague, Mr. John Burns. The Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, was due very largely to his personal initiative and enthusiasm in these matters.

845
I think that the only occasion on which he spoke in public from the date of his resignation in 1914 to the date of his death was at a function at which I had the pleasure of being present, a dinner, which was held to celebrate the 21st anniversary of the passing of that Act. On that occasion, and on that occasion only, as far as I am aware, Mr. John Burns broke his self-imposed silence. He was a pioneer in these matters.
It happened that I succeeded him as President of the Local Government Board when he was appointed to the Board of Trade, and the Government of that day contemplated a very active campaign of propaganda throughout the country to promote town planning, but the war came almost at once and that was made impossible. During the third of a century since the passing of that Act it must be confessed that the progress that has been made has been slow. It has been hard to get started and we have found that to be the case also during the last two or three years. This Bill is on the right lines so far as it goes. It does not, of course, present the whole of the Government machinery for promoting planning in the widest sense—in the sense of a better Britain policy and a national organization—for there is to be not only a Ministry of Town and Country Planning but also in the future a Committee of Ministers concerned with the wider aspects of national organization, under the presidency of seine senior Cabinet Minister, which will deal with these wider matters. That Ministerial Committee is of the first importance in promoting planning in general and town and country planning in particular. One member of this Committee must of course be the Minister of, Town and Country Planning. This title which has been adopted in the Bill is a somewhat clumsy one, but it was perhaps desirable to insert the words "town and country" in order to prevent confusion with the wider aspects of national organization. I have no doubt in popular usage he will be called Minister of Planning pure and simple.
The purpose of this Bill is mainly to separate from the Ministry of Town and Country Planning the Ministry of Works which has lately been combined with it, and that also seems to me to be quite right. I have suggested in previous debates that it might be desirable to effect
846
that separation. Indeed, almost the only purpose of the Bill is to effect that separation. The rest is merely to confirm what has been done already and to give power, which could easily be given by later legislation or which perhaps would not require legislation at all, to establish Commissions for particular purposes. Let me take this opportunity of saying how much I rejoice that the Government have at last come to a clear-cut decision, which is embodied in this Bill, that we are not to have a Commission instead of a Ministry of Planning. That would have involved considerable controversy in this House and elsewhere. It should have been obvious from the beginning that the House of Commons would not tolerate for a moment the relegation of these matters to a Commission with some Chairman instead of a Minister fully responsible to Parliament; nor would local authorities have agreed to it. I was greatly surprised that so many men of great distinction in your Lordships' House should have supported that proposal, which personally I thought had no merit whatsoever. However, the Government have now come to their decision, and the Bill contains proposals for the Ministry, and in Clause 8 for Commissions for very limited purposes, to which the Lord Chancellor has referred and to which no one takes objection.
We have frequently said in this House that there ought to be Commissions similar to the Forestry Commission or the Mining Royalties Commission to own properties, such as the property in development rights if established, or for the management of national parks, which should have these definitely limited functions, and I am glad that Clause 8 makes provision for that. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said that a Commission might be established to obtain information on the subject of national parks. I hope it will do very much more than that. I think it ought to select the areas for national parks and should own, or at all events manage,, those parks on behalf of the Ministry.
As for the duties of the Minister himself the Lord Chancellor quoted the somewhat odd phraseology of Clause 1. The Minister is
"to be charged with the duty of securing consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy with respect to the use and development of land…"

847
"Consistency and continuity" will not carry us very far. It is the case, as was hinted at by the noble Lord who has just spoken, that a company of soldiers who are marking time may show all the virtues of consistency and continuity, but they would not take them very far. What is needed above all in a Minister of Planning is the quality of leadership, the power of stimulus and the power of action. I do not suggest that phraseology of that kind should necessarily be inserted in an Act of Parliament. The words in the Act of Parliament do not matter very much if the Minister himself has these qualities. If he has the quality of initiative and the power of stimulus and the power of action, it does not matter very much what the phraseology of the Act is; but if he lacks them then the words of the Statute will make no difference whatsoever. It depends on the personal qualities of the Minister and upon the support or the opposition which he may receive from his colleagues.
We have had three successive Ministries in the last three years. We have had the Ministry of Works and Buildings, which was replaced by the Ministry of Works and Planning, and now that is to be replaced by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. We have had three Ministers—Lord Reith, Lord Portal and, now, Mr. W. S. Morrison. I hope this Ministry will not equal the record of the Colonial Office which has had seven Ministers in seven years. Each of these three Ministers has been a member of one House or the other who has not had any particularly close acquaintance with the subject-matter of the Department. Indeed, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Portal, who had some experience of it in the time when he was a Commissioner for Special Areas, it may be truly said that they knew nothing at all and each in turn has had to learn the whole subject from the beginning. The new Minister, Mr. W. S. Morrison, has at this moment immense opportunities for achievement in this sphere, but there also face him very dangerous opportunities for failure. A vast public is keenly watching what is being done, and also what is not being clone, and the nation will judge by results. The Minister without Portfolio—may I express, in parenthesis, my regret that that absurd Continental title has been revived?
848
—the Minister without Portfolio, Sir William Jowitt, has spoken in another place of the Minister Designate as being at this moment hoisted into the saddle to start his triumphant gallop. I must say that I feel a little anxious about that. In the first place the new jockey has never seen the horse until this moment, and the horse itself is notoriously a bad starter. Hitherto it has been going round and round in circles in front of the starting gate to the great annoyance of the crowd. We must wait to see whether the new jockey will in fact be engaged in a triumphant gallop or not.
The one unsatisfactory clause in this Bill is the humble and formal clause at the end, Clause 12. It says that "This Act may be cited as the Minister of Town and Country Planning Act, 1943." 1943! Well, there is no reason at all why it should not have been the Minister of Town and Country Planning Act, 1941. When Lord Reith made his statement here on behalf of the Government that the principle of planning was to be adopted as part of the national policy, and that a Central Planning Authority was to be established, there was no reason why this Bill, not precisely perhaps in its present form, should not have been presented in a week or two. There was no need to wait for the Uthwatt Committee. This raises none of the questions to which that Report refers. It is purely a matter of governmental framework. The real reason that was not done was that the Government could not be persuaded to give close attention to this matter, or induced to make up their mind with regard to what form the Central Planning Authority should take. It is true that under Lord Reith and Lord Portal a good deal of progress has been made in a preparatory fashion, with the assistance of the very able staff they have had to help them. But over it all there hung the blight of Government indecision.
I am afraid it is not possible for anyone to put down an Amendment to make 1943 read 1941. It has been said that over past events not even the gods have power. To that we may add, still less has Parliament power. No one can "restore the years that the locust bath eaten." We have lost two years and the matter has now become increasingly urgent. No local authority can make any definite plans until this substantial legislation has been passed—it has not yet even been intro-

849
duced—to decide what their areas should be, what their land powers should be, or what should be the position with regard to compensation and betterment, and indeed to cover the whole great field of actual planning. Many areas, even, do not know what the planning authority is to be in the future. Many owners of destroyed buildings all over the country are eager to prepare the actual plans and designs—which must necessarily take time to prepare—for the erection of their new buildings, but their advisers must inform them that it is quite unsafe to do so because they cannot tell whether they will still have control over the same sites as before, and cannot know what conditions may be attached to the new buildings. Not a single step can be taken effectively in any part of the country until this new legislation has been enacted.
The only announcement which has been made by the Government as to their intentions is that local authorities are to be endowed with large and simple powers for the purchase of land. That is a matter of the first importance. But it is also essential that all these other questions should be dealt with, and, if possible, that the Government should come to some decision on the central recommendation of the Uthwatt Committee which deals with development rights in unbuilt-upon areas. It is now five months since the Report of the Uthwatt Committee was presented, and there is no indication whether the Government intend to accept that particular proposal, or indeed any of the proposals of the Committee, or not, apart from the enlargement of the local authorities' power to purchase land. I trust that this pronouncement will soon be made in definite terms, and that it will be an announcement of the acceptance of the recommendation of the Uthwatt Committee dealing with development rights. It has already received widespread support throughout the country. Here we are in February, 1943 Two years have gone by. February seems to be a critical month in this matter of planning. In February, 1941, we had Lord Reith's statement on Government policy. In February, 1942, if my memory serves me aright, the Ministry of Works and Planning was established. In February, 1943, we have this Bill. I only hope that by February, 1944, the main legislation for which we are all waiting will have been passed through Parliament. But I do not
850
feel at all certain that it will be passed within twelve months from now. If it is, then the local authorities will be able to set to work and frame their definite plans, and, possibly, by February, 1945, the country will have a proper system of town and country planning.
Meanwhile great military events are taking place, and every hundred miles that the Russians advance in their glorious campaign may mean some months taken off the time between now and the end of the war. Some months will be taken off the time still available for the preparation for dealing with the vast and urgent problems that must face us immediately the war is over. The Minister without Portfolio used language which seemed to be somewhat ominous in his speech when presenting this Bill in the other House. He said:
"I hope that in due course the new Minister will bring in a Bill to amend the Act of 1932 dealing with town and country planning."
Again, he said:
"The powers will be the subject of some future Bill which I hope will be introduced shortly."
I hope the Government will not amble on in this easy-going fashion, but that they will make a definite pronouncement that in the immediate future the comprehensive legislation which is indispensable will be introduced. If there is further delay before the introduction of the great Bill which is needed—for this is only a small pioneer measure—or if, when it is at last produced, it is found that obstructive influences within the Government, stirred up by vested outside interests, have reduced it to a feeble, half-hearted measure which is plainly inadequate, then the Government must be prepared to face a very bitter controversy, and must expect to be the object of a nation-wide and indignant attack. They have been warned of this again and again from every quarter. The nation, I am sure, will not tolerate chronic indecision and unending delay.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I wish that Mr. John Burns were alive today, so that he might reply to the speech to which we have just listened, and so that I might have some support for the speech which I am about to make. Mr. John Burns was an individualist, who was also devoted to the local authorities not

851
only of London but throughout the country. The country owes its greatest debt to John Burns for the work which he did for those local authorities. This Bill has one good thing to be said for it, and I shall support it on that ground: at least there is being put in charge of the future measures dealing with town and country planning, a House of Commons man, instead of a man who has had no experience of getting elected. I must, of course, have no confidence in Mr. Morrison, because he is a Tory; but at any rate he is alive to the importance of ultimate results and of popular support for measures such as these.
To my mind, the proposals behind the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, are proposals which will not benefit the community, and which will prove a dangerous weapon for any Party. I see in these proposals a scheme for preventing the poor from living in the country, and I do not believe that that is ever going to be popular in England. Recently, my cousin, Mr. Vaughan Williams, of Leith Hill Place, induced the other landlords of that beauty spot in Surrey to combine together and sacrifice their future development values, consent to a piece of country planning with which we can all agree, and for which we should be deeply grateful. Several thousand acres round Leith Hill are now preserved under this plan, with the approval of the Surrey County Council, and cannot be used for building development, save and except for the building of large houses, with, I think, forty acres to each house. Such buildings will not interfere with the natural beauties of the district. We shall all be in favour of that; and it is because we are in favour of such schemes that so many have supported this idea of general country planning. We have to remember, however, that there is all the difference in the world between a scheme such as that, for a beautiful piece of country or for the national parks which are proposed, and a scheme involving the planning of the whole country. In future, only the rich can live round Leith Hill—people who can afford to build a house on forty acres of land. That is all right; there are other places for poor people to live in; but, if that is made universal, you are going to prevent poor people having the opportunity enjoyed by the rich of living in the countryside. You are so
852
terrified of ribbon development that you are getting to believe that the view matters more than the human being.
The Town and Country Planning Association, which represents public opinion on this issue, says that it is not preventing the poor from living in the country, because satellite towns will be built to which industries can be sent, and which will be laid out as garden cities in the same way as Welwyn and Letchworth, as places where it will be a pleasure and a delight to live and work. That is where you come up against the local authorities and local sentiment. There was a proposal the other day to concentrate the straw made hat by taking it away from Luton and putting it somewhere else. The immediate result was that Luton came en masse to interview Mr. Dalton at the Board of Trade, and said that they were not going to have their hat industry taken away from them and put in some beautiful satellite town somewhere else. I believe that a suggestion has been made that the potting industry would be much better in South Wales, near the coast, so that there would not be the need for transporting coal and clay and china-stone such long distances, and the industry could be conducted more economically. That may be a beautiful idea, but what is Stoke-on-Trent going to say about it? Exactly what Luton said about it. When Luton spoke the scheme dropped to the ground at once, and when Stoke-on-Trent speaks… !
Will it not be the same with every one of these satellite towns? If you take some industries out of Birmingham and dump them down thirty or forty miles away in Warwickshire or Gloucestershire, it may be a beautiful tiling so far as the Town and Country Planning Association is concerned, but it has no relation to reality; the ratepayers and the municipality of Birmingham will not hear of it. I understand, from a speech made the other day by an Under-Secretary, that London is to have ten satellite towns, taking away London's industries and ratepayers. I doubt if London will like it ! A scheme of that kind will not be popular. You have to consider these facts when you are drawing up these schemes. I am glad, therefore, that the Government have not rushed these proposals through. I hope that there will be, on the part of this new Minister, a thorough consideration of the practical difficulties in the way. The first difficulty

853
which he will have to realize is that we have a Town and Country Planning Act already. We have had, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, knows; perfectly well, a Housing and Town Planning Act on the Statute Bock for the last thirty-five years, but there has not been a single case of town planning yet, except for Welwyn Garden City and Letchworth. There was there only one landlord to consider, and he considered the best way of developing his property; and the best and most remunerative way of developing that property was, as we have seen, the beautiful garden cities of Letchworth and Welwyn.
Why has not that taken place anywhere else? It is because there has not been only one landlord; because there have been numbers of landlords involved, and every ore of them has asked what compensation he is going to get out of it. Local authorities all over the country have passed their town-planning schemes. Newcastle-under-Lyme has drawn up an excellent scheme. The people there have had the common sense to buy up all the suburban lands themselves, so that they may lay out their own property. Even that scheme has not been finally approved. It will not be approved of until this question of compensation is decided, until you know what you have got to pay. Under that Bill, and I think under the more recent Bills, you have got to pay when the plan is made and the form of a new town is developed, but not when the development takes place.
What I am glad to see in this Bill is that there is under Clause 8 the opportunity for the new Minister to set up Commissions to inquire into this question of compensation. He is not tied down to the Uthwatt Report; he can come to his own decision; he can advise the Government himself. I hope he will give the Government better advice than they got from the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and that this question of compensation will be tackled on sound, serious lines. I have my own ideas as to how it should be done, and I thought that very brilliant reply to the Lord Chancellor was a very just criticism of the last debate. There ate two ways of approaching this question: either by the taxation or rating of land values, or by State action and compensation. Hitherto, all these Ministers, who have had no previous political
854
experience, have adopted the attitude of saying, "Oh, it will be all right on the night. Just plan and don't bother about compensation. That is a detail for the Treasury." You cannot do it that way. You either have to do it by saying, "We will take the land and compensate you afterwards when we find out what it is going to cost," or you must have some means of driving land into the market at a reasonable price.
I think myself that this Bill is good. I think it is just as well that this matter should be put into the hands of a Parliament man who will be able to appreciate difficulties and at least know what they mean. This whole question has been under discussion all through my political life, and these Committees which have been sitting on it recently, the Uthwatt and Scott Committees, do not seem to realize that the question has ever been raised before. Lord Balfour of Burleigh reported on this matter, I think it was in 1886—I do not mean the present Lord Balfour of Burleigh but the good, sound, free-trading Lord Balfour of Burleigh. This is an old question. The previous people who have been considering what to do have taken no account of the Commissions and Committees that considered the matter in the past. They have not the faintest idea of what has been done long ago in Germany—by the late Burgomaster of Frankfurt, for instance. They have met these difficulties there, and met them not by paying for the land, but by taking the land and saying, "You can have a little bit of the new frontage as it is laid out—no compensation, but you get your bit of your land." All these things have been thought out in other countries: why have not they been thought out here? Ministers there have been, with an enormous staff, for two years. It is quite time a new Minister took the job in hand and tried to see what could actually be done in the way of compensation, or of getting without compensation many of those advantages that we hope to get ultimately by decent planning of town and countryside.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sorry to inflict another speech from this Bench, but I promise it will be a short one. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor if he can tell us something about what this Minister is going to do and

855
what his powers are. I ask that because I want to remind your Lordships of a most remarkable speech that was made here last week by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook. It was made in relation to quite a different subject, but there were matters in that speech which are so peculiarly appropriate to this subject that I may perhaps be excused for reminding your Lordships of them. This new Minister is appointed after two years' deliberation, and I would say in parenthesis that I am not disparaging him. We welcome his personality and we are glad that at long last the Government have decided that somebody should be given charge of the job. That is all to the good, but it has taken two years to do it. His functions are described in the Bill in these words. He will be
"charged with the duty of securing consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy with respect to the use and development of land…"
I want the Lord Chancellor, if he can, to tell us what that means. What is it intended to convey? I have been involved in this subject I think nearly as many years as my noble friend on my left, and during the whole of that time we have been discussing the "framing and execution of a national policy with respect to the use and development of land." In putting those words into the Bill I want to know whether the Government have decided upon anything, and if so, what. I am most anxious to know what this man is going to do, and whether he is going to have any powers to do it.
The bane of this matter for the last thirty years or so has been the multiplicity of Committees. This brings me to the speech of my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook. He said:
"These committees …raise one inquiry after another, and they waste time."
He also said:
"They sit in committee all day long, They go into session in the morning, and they are there all day. They have a paper output that is unexampled."
Well, if that applies with literal truth to anything it applies to town and country planning. To my knowledge, for the greater part of twenty years a multiplicity of authorities, with multitudes of Committees, has been trying to arrive at something that they would wish to do with regard to the Lake District. To quote the
856
noble Lord again, he said that "the great superstructure of committees and coordinating agencies" was "obscuring the main purpose and principal object of our lives." Literally true! I support the institution of this Ministry, expressing the hope that the Minister will be given the power to obliterate a very large amount of the procedure which is at present preventing anything being done that has been instituted under the Town and Country Planning Acts and various Amending Acts. I hope we may be assured very soon that the Minister will be able effectively to secure the necessary preparation of plans, and also that we shall have an announcement which will confront us with realities as to what is to be done for "the use and development of land throughout England and Wales."
LORD BEAVERBROOK: My Lords, I intervene for a very few moments only. I listened with immense surprise to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who told us that in 1909 the Government had prepared a project for planning and that nothing had been done about it, although the noble Viscount remained for six years in office after that time. Nothing was done in six years, and yet this Government are denounced because they do nothing in two years—and two years in the midst of a very great war!
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I said the war came. I was referring to the period of 1914. A good deal was done, but if the noble Lord thinks we could have gone on doing it during the last war he is very much mistaken.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: The noble Viscount said his plan was prepared in 1909 and propaganda was ready.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: 1914.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: I understood the noble Viscount said 1909. If he said 1914 then I withdraw and apologize. But he was in the Government again in 1931, and we heard nothing about planning then. Continually we hear from the noble Viscount abuse of the Government on account of plans and projects which he did nothing to carry out when he was in office. Like my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I must say that this Bill is more or less a diversion from the main pur-

857
poses of the war. The Bill is nothing but a project for creating yet another Ministry, providing for more and more Committees, and for—what is the most damaging feature of this war—multiplying the number of civil servants. Already the Civil Service has grown by 50 per cent, during this war. The Bill has to do with the development of land after the war. Surely the time for considering the development of land after the war is when the war is over. No man can say what will be the conditions confronting us in those days. Vast bombing attacks may take place on this country. We cannot imagine what the condition of the land and the conditions of occupation will be. Why not deal with these issues after the war? That is the proper time. By bringing forward these issues now, we are simply, if I may use a golf term in a House which is entirely familiar with the game, although I know nothing about it, taking our eye off the ball. That is all we are doing. The three matters which should occupy the whole attention of this House at the present time are: (1) The campaign in North Africa; (2) the campaign in Russia; (3) the U-boat campaign, the war at sea. These are the problems upon which your Lordships should fix your minds, for unless they can be dealt with, unless the day comes when we can determine these issues in our favour, there will be no need for developing the countryside at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I confess that my anticipations as to the probable character of this debate have been entirely falsified. I had expected that a rather dull, rather brief, and entirely unanimous view would be expressed in approval of the Bill now before the House, but I am not sure that the main feature of the debate is not that it has been an occasion when twice over one noble Lord refers with indignation to what another member of the House said on a different occasion. I therefore cannot be too glad that among the multifarious duties which fall upon the Lord Chancellor, the keeping of order in this House is not one of them.
Let me say at once to Lord Latham that I assure him that I had not the slightest intention, in the previous debate, of misrepresenting him, and I feel sure he will accept that assurance as very sincerely given. He tells the House—and we all
858
accept it—that the observations he made on that occasion in support of nationalization had nothing to do with his ideas about the way in which planning and the use of land could be carried out. Then I was mistaken. The subject of debate was planning and the use of land, and as the noble Lord did refer at some length to nationalization I made the mistake of supposing that the one thing had something to do with the other. I admit I was wrong in that, and I am content to leave the passages which the noble Lord read in order that any impartial person may determine whether my comment deserves his censure. On that occasion the noble Lord told us he was not speaking for the Labour Benches, but was making a distinctly personal contribution. I can only hope that, as matters now stand, he is completely reconciled to the main body of the Labour Church, and that there will be no reason to suspect him of producing any personal and original views on this matter hereafter.
Then there is the speech made by Lord Wedgwood. The very fact that he speaks from that Bench is sufficient to show there will be no artificial unanimity in the Socialist Party. It is very refreshing to hear it. He reflected sadly on the circumstance that when the town of Luton, which as far as I know has kept silent for a good many years, exercised, by exception, the privilege of public speech, it was attended to. He said he wondered whether it would be the same in the case of Stoke-on-Trent. Well, it is possible that the emphasis rightly to be attributed to an argument depends to some extent on the frequency with which it is presented to an audience.
Then Lord Beaverbrook comes up to defend what he said on a previous occasion. I am not criticising that at all. He describes this Bill as a case of failure to keep one's eye on the ball. I should say that this is a Bill which, if it is not put into effective operation, is calculated to take nothing but a series of divots out of the soil. No doubt it will be important that the skilful hands of the new Minister should be addressed to his difficult task—not as difficult as the game of golf, but none the less exceedingly difficult—and I am glad to think that in this matter we are entrusting the game to a Scotsman.
These various matters having played their part in what has been to me a most entertaining discussion, I return to the Bill. On the subject of the Bill there is,

859
first, the comment that things should have been proceeded with more rapidly. That has been put by more than one of your Lordships. I am not going to offer a further defence to that now. I did say something about it, as Lord Latham reminded the House, on the last occasion. The sentence that he quoted, however, did not sufficiently give the context. What I was saying on the last occasion was that it hardly seemed reasonable to charge the Government with having no policies to announce about the Uthwatt and Scott Reports in the comparatively few weeks which had elapsed since those Reports appeared. This is undoubtedly a very difficult and extensive matter. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships would like further announcements to be made as soon as possible. I can assure you that the Government will take into account what has been said, but in a matter so difficult and serious as this and, as Lord Beaverbrook indicated, in the very middle of the pinch of war, with all its terrific and special dangers, I do not think the Government can fairly be charged with not having got on more quickly with this matter.
The other question expressly addressed to me as arising on the Bill was put by my noble friend Lord Addison. He put his finger upon the words describing the duty of the new Minister and said they were obscure and needed further explanation. The full content of such words, of course, cannot be provided except in the proposals which are put forward hereafter by the new Minister when he assumes his new duty, and I may here observe that it is no use treating Mr. Morrison as though he had been Town and Country Planning Minister since the moment it was announced that he was Minister Designate. He is not at this moment holding that office; he never has, as this Bill provides, received the seal or taken the oath. He has been actively engaged in the duties of the Post Office, and the sooner we carry this Bill into law the sooner it will be possible for him to enter upon his new duties. In connexion with that I hope your Lordships may be disposed now to agree, in view of the urgency of carrying the Bill and putting it on the Statute Book, with the proposal to take the Bill through its remaining stages on the next sitting day in order that it may receive the Royal Assent without delay.
860
Now I come back to Lord Addison's question. Is it fair to say that a Bill requires, at this stage, from the Government any further exposition? The Minister is to be charged with the duty of
"securing consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy with respect to the use and development of land throughout England and Wales."
I must say that I should have thought it was not stating it obscurely if it is thus stated, as it ought to be stated, in wide and general terms. I am glad to make an observation or two with respect to the question put to me by Lord Addison. I call his particular attention to the phrase "national policy." From his long experience and indeed his very connexion with the office which originally dealt with this question, he knows very well how extremely difficult it has been hitherto to pursue a policy of town and country planning where you find that contradiction which arises from the existence of so many authorities and which has prevented anything like a national scheme being put through. It appears to me, therefore, that those words are in themselves a valuable indication of the kind of work and purpose which will fall to the new Minister. Again I think "consistency and continuity" are very proper words in the circumstances: consistency because it is no good having plans which are not consistent with one another, and continuity because it is no use having plans which will be rescinded in the next six months.
Lastly my noble friend Lord Samuel, who has known the Ministry in the early days, has expressed his concern in regard to the difference between the framing of such a policy and the execution of it. May I point out that this Bill expressly states that it is not merely the framing of a national policy but the execution of it that is part of the charge and the function of the Minister? I hope now that the more lively passages in debate are concluded, we can come back to the not very exciting language of the Bill which, as far as I know, contains no misrepresentations, no traps, no provocation either about Socialism or individualism or anything else of that kind, and I hope that your Lordships will now give a Second Reading to this Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble and learned Viscount say whether the phrase about consistency and continuity includes initiating national policy?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure my noble friend would not wish me to go a word beyond what is right in view of the fact that my right honourable friend Mr. Morrison is about to undertake a very heavy task, but I should have thought myself that these words "in the framing and execution of a national policy" did include the inspiration and initiation of such a policy.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CROWN LANDS BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is an agreed measure, and, except for one or two minor criticisms, it was generally welcomed in another place, where it passed through all its stages without alteration. Only the shortest explanation will, therefore, be necessary in order to commend the Bill to your Lordships' House. The purpose of the Bill is to remedy an anomaly by which the Secretary of State for Scotland has at present no responsibility for the administration of Crown Lands in Scotland. The anomaly arises from the fact that when the President of the Board of Agriculture was made a Commissioner in 1906 he then had responsibility for the whole of Great Britain. When a separate Board of Agriculture was established for Scotland in 1911 a change in the arrangements for the administration of Crown lands in Scotland might well have been suggested. The point, however, was not raised, probably because the agricultural land in charge of the Commissioners in Scotland was not very extensive. The recent purchase by the Commissioners of a large part of the Richmond and Gordon estates has changed this situation, and the Government pro-pose that the Secretary of State for Scotland shall become a Commissioner of
862
Crown lands and be the Minister concerned with the administration of Crown lands in Scotland.
As some misunderstanding of the present position appears to exist, I should explain o that although the Minister for Agriculture is one of the two Commissioners of Crown lands, the management of Crown lands is no concern of the Ministry, and is conducted by an entirely separate office. The Commissioners are in the nature of trustees for the hereditary estates of the King, and their duties are more akin to those of trustees under the Settled Lands Acts than those of an ordinary Government Department. The income of the estates after defraying expenses is paid into the Exchequer, but the Commissioners, as trustees, are bound to preserve as far as possible, and if possible augment the capital of the estates entrusted to their charge. The Minister of Agriculture's duties as a Commissioner are therefore entirely distinct from his position as Minister of Agriculture, and he has to keep his two functions separate. If the administration of the Crown lands were in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture it would be difficult for the separate interests of the Crown estates not to be overlooked.
Ever since the beginning it has been generally accepted that money for all public purposes should be voted by Parliament and be subject to Parliamentary control, and that Crown lands should be administered separately from any Government Department. The Crown lands as a whole constitute a trust which should not be affected by political or Party considerations and should not be broken up. If a Minister concerned with agricultural questions is to be a Commissioner of Crown Lands and answer for the Commissioners in Parliament, it is clearly right that for Scotland that Minister should be the Secretary of State. I hope that the Bill will receive the support of your Lordships. This measure also is in the list of those which it is desired to pass through all stages at the next sitting. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Many of your Lordships will be acquainted with the general arrangements and provisions contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, but let me very briefly recall that that Act made provision for all employees who might be injured by accident arising out of and in course of their employment and who were thus disabled from earning their ordinary wages. Further, in the event of death, provision had been made for the payment of a lump sum to persons dependent upon the workman at the time of his death. From time to time various amending Bills have come before your Lordships and in July, 1940, the House gavé approval to a measure which substantially increased the rates of benefit payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This legislation was, I am told, accepted on the understanding that it represented a settlement pending a review of the whole working of the Workmen's Compensation Act. This revision, as your Lordships know, was undertaken by Sir William Beveridge who has now completed his work and the Report been made public. I think I should, however, make it clear that the passage of this Bill will in no way prejudice the issues which he raises in that momentous document.
With these few introductory remarks let me turn to the provisions of this Bill and try to explain the intention and purpose of some of the formidable looking clauses. The Bill seeks to extend the scheme-making powers in respect of diseases of the lungs due to the inhalation of dust, and also to provide for other difficulties which have appeared or which have become acute as the result of war conditions. In 1936 it was alleged that a number of coal-miners, both underground and surface workers, were disabled by fibrosis of the lungs which could not be certified as silicosis, which incidentally has an international definition, and therefore no claim for compensation could be made under the existing silicosis scheme. The Medical Research Council were asked to undertake an investigation in the South Wales coal mines
864
and a pledge was given in Parliament that, if the inquiry revealed other forms of disabling fibrosis, the necessary steps would be taken by legislation to bring it within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act. That investigation established that workers chiefly engaged in the working and handling of coal were found to be suffering from a form of pneumoconiosis which differs from silicosis and cannot, as far as we are aware at present, be due to silica dust.
Clause 1 of the Bill therefore will enable schemes to be made for any form of pneumoconiosis in coal workers. At the same time this extension gives power for schemes to be made for other forms of pneumoconiosis in any other industries should investigations establish the need. Clause 2 gives power to make a benefit scheme to provide compensation for coal workers who may have contracted the disease before the scheme which I have just outlined can come into operation and effect. This scheme will provide for payment of a weekly sum in addition to any benefit received under National Health Insurance Acts out of a fund which is to be raised by means of a levy on coal output. In addition, it will provide a lump sum to dependents of men where death has been certified to be caused by the disease. Clause 4 will enable further steps to be taken by the Minister of Fuel and Power to reduce by all possible means the incidence of this disease. A great deal, I am informed, has been done and is being done in this direction.
Clause 5 is of some importance and its provision is intended to be limited to the period of the war. The attention of my right honourable friend had been drawn to the case of a widow of a workman who has either taken up employment or has been directed to some work to assist the war effort, and where the amount of compensation she has received as the result of her husband's accident has been less than she would have normally received if she had not taken up or been directed into particular work. Under this clause the Court—the County Court—will be able, in assessing the degree of dependency, to disregard the war earnings of the widow and, if she was wholly or partially dependent on her husband, to award compensation accordingly.
Clause 6 deals with a question which I know has caused considerable grievance

865
on account of wage increases since the war and more particularly in the case of partially disabled workmen. I have been told that under the Act partial compensation is generally one-half of the difference between the workman's average weekly earnings before the accident and what he is earning or is capable of earning after the accident. Your Lordships will observe that whenever wage increases are given the workman's compensation is automatically reduced by one-half of the increase, so that in fact he does not get the full benefit of any rise in wages that may have taken place. Under this clause the workman will be entitled to a recalculation of his average wage earnings before the accident whenever a. change occurs in the rate of remuneration in the class of employment in which he was employed at the date of his accident. The clause will be applicable to both past and future cases.
As I have mentioned, I am aware that some difference of opinion has been expressed in another place on the wording of this clause and my right honourable friend has given a pledge which I think your Lordships will desire: me to repeat in this House. The pledge which my right honourable friend gave is as follows:
"His Majesty's Government propose that the method of calculating pre-accident earnings upon a basis that shall fairly assess the earning power of the workman shall be the subject of immediate examination, with a view to regotiation with the representatives of employers and workmen at an early date."
The last clause to which I think I need draw the attention of your Lordships is Clause 9. which is designed to assist the Ministry of Pensions to secure the repayment of any pension paid under the War Pensions and Detention Allowances Scheme to the dependants of a seaman in cases where it is found that the dependants are entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I hope I have said sufficient to give your Lordships an indication of the provisions of this Bill, but may I just add one other thing? If it had not been for some delay in another place this Bill would have become law before Christmas. We are anxious to get it passed as soon as possible and with the agreement of your Lordships we propose to take the remaining stages at the next sitting of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster:)
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, you will no doubt be grateful to the noble Earl for his very clear exposition of a Bill of only ten clauses but which has a portentous title extending to no less than fourteen lines. The length of the title indicates the complexity of some of the matters which are dealt with in this Bill. Before the war a Royal Commission was engaged upon making a comprehensive review of the operation of the law relating to workmen's compensation. It was of course inevitable that the proceedings of that Royal Commission should fall into abeyance in view of the situation created by the war.
To meet the immediate situation in 1940 the Supplementary Allowances Act, to which the noble Lord opposite referred just now, was passed. Despite the fact that the Royal Commission had suspended its deliberations on the question of workmen's compensation, as will be in the knowledge of your Lordships, it has been the subject of profound consideration and long exposition by Sir William Beveridge, in his Report, whereby he proposes that the whole question of workmen's compensation should be brought within the four corners of a scheme for social security and as an integral part of such a scheme. No more than the noble Lord opposite do I propose to pursue that matter here and now. It will obviously be a subject of the fullest consideration by your Lordships on some future occasion.
This Bill is a useful Bill, as the noble Lord opposite has said. In its two opening clauses it provides an extension of the provision already made in case of silicosis. The remaining provisions of this Bill are directed to clearing away certain anomalies and to clarifying certain situations which have arisen in the operation of the existing Acts and which will not brook delay. These are difficulties which have been disclosed by the war and it is right and proper that opportunity should be taken now of putting right such difficulties. That, in the opinion of my noble friends, is done by this Bill. We welcome the measure and we welcome the reaffirmation by the noble Lord opposite of the undertaking given in another place on behalf of the Government. My noble friends hope that this Bill will now find its way on to the Statute Book. Naturally, as suggested by the noble Lord opposite, they will facilitate the passage of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WORLD BANK PROPOSAL.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL had a question on the Paper asking His Majesty's Government whether any agreement has been reached, or is under negotiation, with the United States of America, for the establishment, after the war, of a world bank entrusted with the right to issue and recall the currency and credit of this country. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first question standing on the Paper to-day in my name came up in your Lordships' House on 1st December and again on 15th December, but on each occasion it was past the hour at which your Lordships usually rise. So, in the circumstances, I thought it best to ask leave to postpone it until this day, particularly, too, as other members of your Lordships' House had indicated their desire to submit some observations. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack for the courtesy he has shown in connexion with this question, to which he was, on those two occasions which I have mentioned, prepared to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government. This morning I was privileged to receive a telephone call from the Lord Chancellor—an honour which I shall not forget. He suggested that as a somewhat similar matter is being touched on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place, he thought it desirable to withdraw this question—which, my Lords, is a very vital one—until another occasion. This I now propose to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I just express my thanks to my noble friend? I am informed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a somewhat elaborate review of this class of question—which is very important and in some aspects very delicate. I do think it would hardly be reasonable to expect me, in this House at the same moment to make a statement of equal importance. My noble friend will have the opportunity of reading the report of what is said in another place.
868
If, after doing so, he thinks it is right to raise the matter here, I shall do my best to reply to him.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I would like to make a few observations upon this matter. I do not know whether I should do so at this stage or not, but unless I am called to order by your Lordships I propose now to say what I have in mind. I wish it to be perfectly clear that I am doing so without making any kind of reflection of any sort upon the Lord Chancellor for asking Lord Sempill to withdraw his question. But I do wish, as a member of your Lordships' House, to protest against the theory that because a matter is being touched upon in another place we have no right to discuss it here or should not do so. There are ample precedents for the same question being discussed simultaneously in the two Houses. In fact, I think that that procedure has certain disadvantages, and I have taken occasion to say so. But to request a Peer to withdraw a question because it is being debated by the other House is, I think, very dangerous indeed.
I repeat that I am making no sort of charge or reflection against the Lord Chancellor, who, obviously, was only passing on a message which he received. But twice I have come here to support Lord Sempill on this question, which, as he says, has far-reaching implications and is of great importance. Twice the Lord Chancellor has been ready to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Twice the hour has been too late conveniently to debate so wide a matter. I think that my noble friend Lord Sempill has been most generous in the way in which he has received this request to postpone his question. I content myself with protesting, in the most serious way I can, against this treatment of a member of your Lordships' House and, above all, against the precedent which this might be taken to set up. I only hope that my noble friend will persist in this question, and will raise it again at an early date when we can have the whole matter fully debated.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack for his very kind remarks. In the circumstances I do not put the question now.

POSITION OF AUSTRIANS.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL asked His Majesty's Government whether in view of the agreed importance of the restoration of Austria's independence in the post-war settlement thy will declare their determination to see this achieved and will forthwith take all steps to implement this policy by establishing a clear distinction between Austrians and Germans, in line with the policy already adopted by the Government of the United States of America which regards Austrians as friendly aliens and grants them similar facilities for enlistment in the Navy and Army to those enjoyed by United States citizens.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to submit this question with regard to Austria for your Lordships' consideration to-day, and I feel that the time is opportune to raise this whole matter. Firstly, because of our commitments of honour to Austria and the Austrian people, following the policy adhered to by His Majesty's Government in the years between the last war and this; secondly, because of the direct interest of Britain and of the Empire in this all-vital issue. I am submitting this matter to your Lordships in the form of a question, and not in the more usual form of a Motion, because I feel convinced from all that has been said by the. Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that His Majesty's Government are determined to aid the resurrection of Free Austria by all the means in their power.
So far as our commitments to Austria are concerned, I have only to remind your Lordships that these were laid down in Article 88 of the Treaty of St. Germain, to which His Majesty's Government were a party. The League of Nations guaranteed the independence of Austria, and Austria undertook to abstain from any act likely to compromise her independence. To that policy His Majesty's Government rigidly adhered in the years fallowing the Peace Treaty. Indeed, on one notable occasion, in 1931, when one of the principles of the Treaty of St. Germain seemed to be menaced by negotiations which had been entered into between Berlin and Vienna, at the instigation of Berlin, for a so-called Customs Union, His Majesty's Government, through the mouthpiece of the then Secretary of State
870
for Foreign Affairs, the late Mr. Henderson, very wisely insisted that the question should be submitted to the League of Nations for examination. Mr. Henderson himself took the initiative and referred the matter to the Council of the League. Your Lordships will remember, I am sure, that the German Government were shown up in a most unfavourable light.
In the years between the wars, His Majesty's Government never once left the Government in Vienna or the Government in Berlin under any misapprehension at all as to their attitude towards Article 88 of the Treaty of St. Germain and the corresponding Article in the Treaty of Versailles. His Majesty's Government were at pains to make it clear that they would tolerate no violation of the Treaties which would be calculated to imperil the freedom of Austria. It is well that we should remember that in the years from 1933 onwards, after Herr Hitler had come into power and after he had embarked on his policy of attack upon Austrian independence, His Majesty's Government reaffirmed their attitude, and with great vigour, at the time when all Austrian Parties, including the influential Social Democrats, had repudiated every idea of incorporation within the fold of the Third Reich. In protest to Berlin, in repeated joint declarations with the French and Italian Governments, in February, 1934, and at the Conference of Stresa in 1935, His Majesty's Government made it clear to Austria and to the Austrian people that they regarded the maintenance of Austria's independence as an interest of their own which they intended fully to protect.
I do not propose to go at length into the history of the long and very gallant struggle of Austria to maintain her independence in the years from 1933 to 1938, a struggle in which Austrians were given every reason to believe that they had the full support of His Majesty's Government. Nor do I propose to outline the circumstances of the crisis of 1938, which resulted in the annexation of Austria by Germany, except to observe that the attitude of the people of Austria at that time was grossly misapprehended abroad. A majority of the very competent representatives of the Anglo-American Press in Vienna at the time were ready to testify to the certainty that, had Chancellor Kurt von Schnschnigg been allowed to carry out his plebiscite on the issue of the main-

871
tenance of Austria's independence, there would have been no doubt as to the result at all; an overwhelming majority would have been in favour of Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg's policy. Indeed, it was just the certainty of this majority by the free vote of the people of Austria which determined Herr Hitler on his course of aggression, and so the Armies of the Third Reich marched into Austria, thus settling by force what he well knew could not have _been settled in his favour by a free vote of the Austrian people.
It is out of this policy, pursued so consistently by His Majesty's Government from 1919 onwards, that our commitments of honour to the people of Austria arise to-day, and it is for this reason that those British subjects, many in number, who have followed this country's struggle, and are to-day better acquainted with the dreadful story of the disaster of March, 1938, have so greatly welcomed the declarations made by the Government of the United States of America and also by His Majesty's Government on the subject of Austria—the declaration of the Prime Minister on November 9, 1940, repeated on February 18, 1942, and lastly the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place in reply to a question, to the effect that His Majesty's Government formally repudiated the de facto recognition of the annexation of Austria which had been forced on them in 1938, when the other Members of the League of Nations found themselves unable to assist in withstanding Germany's aggression. His Majesty's Government have never given de jure recognition to Austria's annexation by the Third Reich. Your Lordships will remember also the important statement of policy issued by the Party led in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Addison, the Labour Party, on May 2, 1942, placing Austria at the head of the list of those countries entitled to the restoration of their sovereign independence as the first victim of Germany's aggressive policy.
I have taken the liberty of reminding your Lordships of the commitments of honour of His Majesty's Government towards Austria and the Austrian people arising out of British policy in the years between the wars, and I would now ask to be allowed to
872
make a few observations on our own direct interest in the question of Austria. Your Lordships will no doubt remember an important speech in another place in April, 1936, by the late Sir Austen Chamberlain, who to-day has taken his place among our eminent Foreign Secretaries. Sir Austen Chamberlain said:
"The independence of Austria is a key position. If Austria perishes Czechoslovakia becomes indefensible. Then the whole of the Balkans would be subjected to a gigantic war influence. Then the old Germanic dream of a Central Europe ruled by and subject to Berlin, would become reality from the Baltic to the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, with lamentable consequences not only for our country but for our Empire."
That was said by Sir Austen Chamberlain in 1936.
Let us pause for a moment to reflect on the manner in which the late Sir Austen Chamberlain's forecast has come true. Within less than a year and a half of the fall of Austria, we were faced with the consequences so clearly visualized, which are a direct menace to our most vital interests, and indeed to our very existence as an Empire. I have quoted that passage from the late Sir Austen Chamberlain's speech to emphasize the great importance of Austria from the point of view of our own immediate interests. What was said by the late Sir Austen Chamberlain in 1936 remains true at this hour; in other words, it is upon the re-establishment on solid foundations of Austria's independence that the duration of the peace settlement which we aim eventually to achieve may well depend.
That adequate provision for Austria's existence can be made in friendly collaboration with the other Powers concerned for the restoration of their independence there is little room for doubt, since, despite all her disabilities on the economic side, Austria had proved by 1937 that economically she could stand on her own feet. Indeed, she had brought completely to naught the campaign embarked on by the German Government to reduce her by economic pressure. It was such conditions, under perpetual menace and overt attack, which kept the country in a continuous state of unrest. Austria showed herself capable of maintaining her position, indeed, of greatly improving it, from the economic point of view in the critical years between 1933 and 1938. There is life in Austria, and the consideration of the economic needs of her people

873
will present no real problem to those peoples, anxious to restore their own position, and to whose future consolidation the restoration of Austria may provide the key.
It does seem to me that on the background of the satisfactory declarations that His Majesty's Government have made in regard to Austria, advantages would most definitely accrue for this policy and its development, not only in Austria itself but elsewhere in the world, if His Majesty's Government could see their way to adapt their procedure towards Austrians exiled as a result of Herr Hitler's aggression in 1938 to that of the Government of the United States of America, who have quite recently decreed a definite distinction between Austrians and Germans, excluding the former from treatment as enemy aliens. Austrian subjects in the United States of America can enlist in the Navy and in the Army. In fact, as your Lordships will be aware, a special Austrian Legion has been formed which will fight under the combined flags of the United States and Austria. This Legion at this moment is officered by American officers of Austrian extraction until such time as Austrians in the Legion who have fled from the aggression of Hitler may be trained to undertake these duties. Austrians, whatever their political ideas may be, have joined and are continuously joining this unit, which can prove an important instrument in the forthcoming European struggle referred to, so we understand, in the recent Conference in North-West Africa.
As your Lordships may have noticed, the Government of the Dominion of Canada has but recently taken action very similar to that taken by the Government of the United States of America. Canada thus re-recognizes Austria's sovereign independence, and it is understood that the Dominion Government will facilitate the passage to the United States of America of Austrians who wish to join the Austrian Legion that has just been founded in that country. I suggest that if it were known that His Majesty's Government had taken the important step of recognizing a distinction between Austria and Germany, this by itself would put fresh heart into the growing numbers in Austria who are striving to hinder the Axis war effort, since they would know that the future freedom of their country was assured. I suggest that
874
we should exploit the declared policy of His Majesty's Government in every way possible by emphasizing this distinction between Austrians and Germans, so that we may bring home to Austria and the other freedom-seeking peoples that we are not unmindful of our commitments. In the eighteenth century the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Austria successfully fought another aggressor, and we heard an echo of that old association in the words of Marlborough's descendant, our present Prime Minister, when he said:
"We can never forget here in this island that Austria was the first victim of Nazi aggression. The people of Britain will never desert the cause of the freedom of Austria from the Prussian yoke."
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, is to be congratulated not only on raising this important question, but also on the very full and concise summary of it which he has given. He has dealt with an enormous subject very completely, and in a very short time. My noble friend the Leader of the Labour Party in your Lordships' House was good enough to ask me to express our views on the matter, though it is hardly necessary for me to do so, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, reminded your Lordships, at our last annual conference—when we try to lay down our policy for the guidance of our representatives in the Cabinet (which they do not always follow out)—we reiterated our view that Austria should receive her independence as one of the first objects of the war. To that declaration we, of course, adhere, and I am very glad to have the opportunity of repeating it.
This is a matter the importance of which cannot be exaggerated. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Beaver-brook, has found it necessary to leave the House, because this is a matter directly affecting the war. If the Mediterranean coast of Europe is "the soft under-belly of the Axis," then Austria is the soft under-belly of Germany; it is the way into Germany, and the way into Germany through the Balkans. Therefore any popular movement in Austria to support an invading Army moving up through the Balkans can be of the greatest service to the cause of the United Nations. For that reason alone I consider that we should make every endeavour to encourage all those in Austria who are discontented with the Nazi tyranny and who are prepared to

875
assist our cause. My noble friend Lord Sempill mentioned the formation of an Austrian Legion in the United States. I am all in favour of forming these Legions of oppressed peoples. The effect on the serving Austrian soldiers in the German Army would be enormous if they knew there was an Austrian Legion under the Austrian Flag fighting on our side. It would have tremendous propaganda effect among enemy troops. Your Lordships will remember the Czech Legion, formed by Czech soldiers in the Austrian Army in the last war, and afterwards the Polish Legion, and the effect on the Polish conscripts fighting in the German and Austrian Armies in the war of 1914–18.
I cannot understand why that has not been done with regard to the Austrians this time. Your Lordships are aware of the evidence of discontent and unrest in Austria. From all the evidence I have received I would like to support the statement made by my noble friend that only a minority welcomed the Nazis in the first place and since then that minority has shrunk. Austria has been ruined economically by the Nazis. They have looted and sucked the country dry both of natural wealth and of human wealth. They have done their best to destroy the separate spirit of Austrians; the artistic life of Austria has suffered under these tyrants, and the people have resented it bitterly.
I wish, however, to make two reservations with regard to this matter, as raised by my noble friend. In the United States there has been some confusion and surprise caused by the apparent favouring of the Archduke Otto of Hapsburg as the head of the organization for recruiting soldiers for the Austrian Legion. This surprise was all the deeper in that previous offers by Austrian Republicans to help had not been accepted by the American Government. There was so much confusion that the President himself intervened and stated that the legitimist Pretender, the Archduke Otto of Hapsburg, was only a member of the Committee charged with the organization of this Legion. I understand that the President's intervention caused a great deal of satisfaction in the United States.
If we are also going to encourage the recruiting of an Austrian Legion—I hope we shall, both here and in the Dominions —it would be a fatal mistake to associate
876
any member of the Hapsburg family with it in any way whatever, for two reasons. First, because in so doing we would offend our Polish, Czech, Yugoslav, and other Allies from the Succession States. There is no doubt about that. Talk to any responsible Minister of the Polish, Yugoslav, or any other Government of the Succession States who are exiles in London, and he will leave you in no doubt as to the attitude of the former subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to any question of the restoration of the Hapsburgs. It is a matter not to be even discussed with them. Secondly, Austria has a right to self-determination under the Atlantic Charter. It has the right freely to choose its own form of government. That is what we have all committed ourselves to under the Atlantic Charter. But if the armed forces are under the control of one particular set of protagonists—in this case the Royalists—then they will be able to coerce the population, and the elections or plebiscites will not be fair. We have had one unfortunate object lesson of this sort of blunder in North Africa, and we have far less excuse for making a similar blunder with regard to Austria.
The other reservation I make is with regard to the possible economic difficulties in Austria. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will refer to this, and he speaks with greater authority than I can possibly claim. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, spoke of the great economic recovery in Austria before the Nazi invasion, but that recovery was made under considerable difficulties. There is a great economic case for a Danubian Federation for trade purposes, and there is a far stronger case for European economic unity. That is the one good thing that the Nazis have talked about—the economic United States of Europe. They have not carried it out; they intend to make it into a tyranny, but in theory it is the one good thing we have had from them. I believe we shall have to undertake something of the sort after the war. That is one of the ways of getting over the economic difficulties of a small State like Austria in the midst of neighbours who otherwise are protectionist and who may hamper and hinder trade. I hope my noble friend will not object to my making these two reservations whilst otherwise completely supporting his plea to His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, it is rather a pity that the noble Lord who has just spoken went into the question of Austrian internal difficulties. Your Lordships would be well advised to avoid taking any sides in such disputes, which must be settled by the Austrians themselves. The noble Lord who raised this question—we should be grateful to him for doing so—has reminded us that the Prime Minister has already declared that the independence of Austria is one of our war aims I have no doubt that your Lordships will agree that it is of the utmost importance that Austria should be, and should remain, liberated from German domination. This view, I feel certain, will be shared by those Central European countries who are members of the United Nations. But even when the freedom of Austria is achieved it will be necessary for certain special arrangements to be made as regards Austria's economic future. With all due respect to the observations made by the noble Lord, we cannot afford to repeat the situation which occurred after the last war. We cannot afford to leave her in that economic position. Here again, once victory has been won, we can very largely rely on Austria's friendly neighbours to help the situation. I do so with more confidence because I remember that Dr. Benes always maintained that Austria must receive special treatment from those States which constituted the Little Entente. It is sad to think that insufficient attention was paid to his recommendations in the past, but I hope, when the time arrives, they will be given that weight which is due to the eminence of their author.
The noble Lord who raised the question has also asked for facilities for enlistment of Austrians in the Navy and Army. I am certain that such a step would give great encouragement to Austrians everywhere and would strengthen their resistance to Nazism. I realize that there may be certain naval, military, and even security problems involved, and of these the Government must be the ultimate judge. Subject to these problems—perhaps in view of tae analogy of the United States mentioned by the noble Lord, these problems may be solved here too; if they can, so much the better—I trust His Majesty's Government will receive the request which the noble Lord has made with particular sympathy.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not wish to occupy your attention for more than a few moments, but I find myself in the warmest sympathy with my noble friend Lord Sempill in the attitude he has taken up and the speech he has made. All of us must feel that the Austrian people have been treated extraordinarily badly during the last twenty years, that they have the right to the sympathy and support of this country in achieving whatever it is they wish to achieve, and that we ought certainly to do nothing to interfere with their efforts in that direction. It is said that we ought to pledge ourselves more specifically and more definitely to the independence of the country than we have done. The statement of the Prime Minister seems to me to have gone as far in that direction as it is reasonable to ask the Government to go.
I was very glad to hear from my noble friend Lord Perth his view that it would be the greatest possible mistake for us to interfere in the internal politics of the Austrian people. I hold that view very strongly with regard to all countries, for two reasons. In the first place, because do not think we have any right to do so; and in the second place, because history shows in almost every case that any regime, any Government, which is imposed by foreign pressure upon a country, labours under the very greatest difficulties and is commonly overset very shortly. I do not imagine for a moment the Government have any idea of doing such a thing. I hope the Government will make no statement whether they are in favour of this or that solution of the Austrian internal problems, but will leave that strictly, as the Atlantic Charter has said, to the decision of the Austrian people freely and unreservedly.
The other thing that has been pressed is the recruitment of an Austrian legion. I should certainly be very glad if that were found practicable. I entirely assent to the view that it would be of considerable assistance to us in every way; and that it would be a great encouragement to those Austrians who hate and disapprove of the German policy and would be glad to be entirely free from any responsibility for it. But undoubtedly there are difficulties. We have not recognized, and are not in a position, as far as I can see, to recognize, any form of Austrian Govern-

879
ment at the present time. I do not say that is fatal to the creation of an Austrian Legion, but I do recognize that it must add some very considerable technical difficulties to it. The reason why no such recognition has taken place I think ought to be stated quite openly, because it is important that both the Austrian people and the English people should know exactly what the main difficulty in that respect must be—namely, that unfortunately there is no unity amongst the Austrians who are at present refugees in this country.
I would not for the world intervene in the controversy that exists, but undoubtedly there are a considerable number of Austrians on both sides: those who cannot forget the way that they were treated by their own Government in times past, and those who, on the other hand, are anxious for a union of Austrians and an oblivion, at any rate, of events that have taken place in the past. I cannot help feeling that somehow or other, that controversy ought to be settled, and that the British Government should have the opportunity of negotiating, if negotiation is necessary, with some body that represents unquestionably the great mass of the Austrians who are now refugees in this country. I do not know how near we have reached the achievement of that object. All I know is that occasionally papers are sent to me by both sides, but particularly by one side, using very strong language indeed about the other sections and saying that in no circumstances can the authors of those papers have anything to do with the other Austrians at the present time. I cannot help feeling that it is only right that those of us who wish well to Austria—and I certainly count myself as one of them—should state in the strongest possible way that if the Austrian refugees desire full recognition, the first thing they must do is to present a united front and abandon these controversies, at any rate until the victory has been won. I feel that that is an essential condition, or at any rate a very valuable condition, even for the creation of an Austrian Legion and is absolutely essential if you desire anything like formal recognition of Austrian nationality at the present time.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I think we shall all agree that the noble
880
Lord, Lord Sempill, introduced his Motion this afternoon in a very moving and powerful speech. The noble Lord will no doubt forgive me if I do not follow him into his disquisition on the past history of Austria. At this late hour of the day it would not be possible to go fully into the events of the pre-war years of which he gave so interesting an account. Moreover, I think he would be the first to agree that he is himself much more concerned with the future than with the past and that he described these past events principally in order to point a moral to the argument which he was putting forward. It is, therefore, with the future rather than with the past that I propose to deal this afternoon.
The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the future of Austria which is raised in the noble Lord's Motion, has I think been made abundantly clear in numerous public statements at various times. It is, as your Lordships will understand, difficult for me to add materially to those statements this afternoon. But I should have thought that there should exist no doubt as to the policy of His Majesty's Government on this clearly important question. As far back as 9th November, 1940, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister described Austria as one of the countries "for whom we have drawn the sword and for whom our victory will supply liberation." That was a clear and definite statement. Then again, more recently, on the 9th September of last year, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place recalled that statement and added:
"While His Majesty's Government cannot, of course, commit themselves at this stage to recognize or support the establishment in the future of any particular frontiers in Central Europe, I must make it plain that His Majesty's Government equally do not regard themselves as being bound by any change effected in Austria in and since 1938."
These statements I think make it clear that among the objects for which this country is fighting is the liberation of the Austrian people, as of all the other oppressed peoples of Europe, from Nazi domination.
The future political status of Austria must, however, inevitably be influenced by events in Austria—and outside it—between now and the hour of the Allied victory. As the Foreign Secretary pointed

881
out in reply to a question in the House of Commons on the 16th December last, it must depend, among other things, upon the future attitude of the Austrians themselves, the great majority of whom, it must be remembered, are now fighting in the ranks of our enemies. It is against this background that the position of Austrian exiles in this country must be considered. The position of these people at present in this country was stated by the Home Secretary in reply to a question in the House of Commons on March 5 last year and which your Lordships will perhaps allow me to quote. The Home Secretary said:
"As regards treatment, it is open to any individual Austrian to apply for exemption from the special restrictions applicable to aliens of enemy nationality, and such application would he granted if I were satisfied that the applicant is whole-heartedly sympathetic with the Allied cause and willing to assist our war effort. But I regret that I should not be prepared to grant these exemptions wholesale to all persons of former Austrian nationality. As regards status, the expression alien of enemy nationality' includes all persons who are national of a State at war with His Majesty, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by attempting to differentiate between different classes of persons who possess enemy nationality."
I cannot, I think, very usefully add anything to that statement, which still represents the considered policy of His Majesty's Government. I would however, remind the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, and other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon that Austrians in this country are only a section of those people who have escaped from Nazi persecution in Central Europe, and that there would be serious difficulties of principle as well as of an administrative nature if we granted them a privileged status which could not be extended to other refugees.
With regard to service in the Armed Forces to which the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, referred, the position is that Austrians who wish to serve the Allied cause can be enrolled in the Pioneer Corps of the British Army. I will say a word about the Legion later. Both in the Pioneer Corps and in various branches of industry we have Austrians who are already making a very useful contribution to the Allied war effort the value of which is fully recognized. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, in his speech made certain suggestions. Those suggestions present considerable difficulties, to some of which my noble relative, Viscount Cecil, referred,
882
and about which I do not propose to say any more. But with regard to the Legion I think there is something I should say, because that is clearly a matter of special interest to your Lordships. It would not be true to say that the question of a Legion or of an Austrian unit has not been considered. It has been considered and, what is more, attempts have actually been made to give effect to it. But I must say quite frankly to your Lordships that up to now great practical difficulties have been encountered on various grounds into which I do not wish to go this afternoon. It has not yet been found possible to find a successful solution to these. But I can assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government have not been in any way opposed in principle to such proposals.
Lastly, the noble Lord drew attention to a difference which I think he suggested existed between the policy of His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in this matter. Perhaps he will allow me to make this observation: I think it is often overlooked that there are important differences between the position in the United States and that obtaining in this country. One of the most important of these, and I would like to emphasize this, is that while most of the Austrians—the great majority of the Austrians—in this country are refugees who have lately arrived from Central Europe, the majority of persons of Austrian descent in the United States have been established there for many years and may almost be said to have absorbed themselves into the country.. They are a semi-stabilized population. It may not therefore always prove practicable to apply in this country specific measures which have been found suitable in the United States with regard to Austrian nationals situated in that country. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that such necessary differences of practice do not betoken any divergence of policy between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States on the main question of the future of Austria. That policy, so far as we are concerned, was defined very succinctly in the words of the Prime Minister on November 9, 1940, which I quoted in the opening sentences of my speech. There is no doubt what those words mean, and on those words His Majesty's Government stand.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for his very sympathetic reply to my question.

EPISCOPAL ENDOWMENTS AND STIPENDS MEASURE, 1943.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure, 1943, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships rather rapidly to reduce your range of vision from the problems of Europe to the problems of episcopal endowments and stipends. The chief purpose of this Measure is to deal with a long-standing problem of episcopal houses. As some of your Lordships know many of these houses are ancient and historic buildings of great interest, of great beauty and of immense size. They form part of the temporalities of the episcopal see. The Bishop for the time being is fully responsible for their upkeep, and not only for tenants' liabilities, for heating, lighting and decoration, but also for what are commonly called landlord's liabilities. He must keep the structure in repair and he is under an obligation to hand it on in good repair to his successor. That is a task which quite simply, as things are nowadays, no Bishop is able properly to perform. Many Bishops have abandoned their episcopal houses, but they still remain liable for dilapidations. Other Bishops like myself live in a portion of the episcopal house and abandon the rest, but they are still responsible for the upkeep and repair of the whole building. It is an odd fact that when a see is vacant there is no owner at all of an episcopal house and nobody responsible for its upkeep.
I really need not go into details. It is quite clear, I think, that the ownership of these great houses, some of them modern but equally large and inconvenient, should be transferred to a central authority, and that for two reasons. The first is in order that the central authority may secure that the houses, which are the possess ion of the Church, should be kept properly in repair and should not
884
be allowed, as they are at present, to fall gradually into disrepair. The second reason is that only a central authority can really take these great houses and deal with them and decide to what use they should be put, decide whether they are no longer of any use for ecclesiastical purposes and ought to be sold or applied to other use, decide whether they can be adapted for use partly as a residence of suitable size for the Bishop and partly for some other ecclesiastical purpose. Shortly, the purpose of the Measure is to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to prepare and submit to His Majesty in Council a scheme in the case of any see for taking over the endowment of the see, which means in particular the house, and in return pay a reduced stipend to the Bishop as a charge upon their common fund. That does really enable the problem of these immense houses to be dealt with.
There is one further point which I must mention. Bishops also carry a large number of official expenses. They provide for their own office staff and office, for example. It is proposed that when the Ecclesiastical Commisioners have taken over the endowments and the house of a see they shall also have power to pay certain standing official charges upon the Bishop, such as those relating to chaplains, secretaries, clerks and office expenses. In the light of these reduced liabilities of the Bishop, the scheme will fix a reduced stipend of such an amount as seems appropriate. Thus the nominal stipend of a Bishop will be brought more into relation than it now is with the actual stipend of a Bishop, and what has been, for long, a fruitful cause of serious misunderstanding will be, at least, reduced, though not, perhaps, entirely abolished. A Bishop will still have to carry a considerable number of official expenses arising directly out of his office, and to that extent his stipend will appear swollen. But at least some of the present disparity between the nominal and the real will be removed. I have mentioned faithfully the chief purposes of this Measure. It was received with general assent in the Church Assembly, and has received the approval of the Ecclesiastical Committee. It does remove a quite obvious problem and I venture to hope that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure, 1943, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Borough of Wrexham:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Grand Union Canal [H.L.]

Liverpool Hydraulic Power [H.L.]

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.